that's what the american citizens want. they want stability and reduced prices at the pump. i9 -- it is a bogus argument to say that this pipeline is going to lead to an increase at the pumps. it just doesn't make sense. . now what i believe is a strained conclusion of a comment made by a transcanadian employee that they can actually charge more. the reality is, heavy crude is heavily discounted when compared to a sweet or lighter crude that is easier and less costly to refine. so there is a discount in there. but if you have a pipeline that

then easily transports and eliminates a lot of cost of transporting and you have reliability that does slightly increase the value to those buyers of that crude in texas, louisiana, oklahoma, and other parts of the midwest. so the reality is this heavy crude still will not rise to the price of a sweet crude. the reality is the reliability of this oil coming to u.s. refwineries will lower the price at the pumps and that's what we should be doing. besides all of the jobs that will be created from this pipeline, 20,000 direct jobs created from this pipeline. energy security. an additional 100,000 to 200,000 jobs created on top of

the construction. so we need to move. we need the decision made, the data is here, they have enough time for additional comments to be able to make the decision by november 1, and i urge the defeat of this amendment and reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from ohio has 30 seconds. mr. kucinich: how much time did the chair say? the chair: the gentleman has 30 seconds. mr. kucinich: the bottom line, the people whose jobs depend on their being right all conclude that increases in the price of guest will hit the midwest as a result of this pipeline. these aren't just employees of transcanada. these are legal experts who put this in an application. it's not a bogus argument. if that's a bogus argument, then that information should be conveyed to the government of

canada because transcanada's application to the government of canada said they could increase america's fuel bill by limiting the supply of canadian crude to midwest refineries and rerouting it to gulf coast refineries. stand up for the american consumer. the chair: the gentleman from nebraska has one minute remaining to close. mr. terry: american workers, american consumers, will be better off, they will reap the advantages of the reliable source of energy, eliminating or at least greatly reducing the uncertainties that cause the gas spikes prices at the pump. so let's defeat this amendment and i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time for debate has expired. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the

noes have it. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: on that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich, will be postponed. pusuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 112-181, on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order, amendment wurm one by mr. welch of vermont, earment number two by mr. rush, amendment number three by ms. eshoo, amendment number five by mr. cohen, amendment number six by mr. rush, amendment number eight by ms. hanabusa of hawaii, and amendment number 10 by mr. kucinich of ohio. excuse me, that last amendment,

is amendment number 11. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number one printed in house report 112-181 by the gentleman from vermont mr. welch on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number one printed in house report 112-181, offered by mr. welch of vermont. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in favor of taking this vote by a recorded vote will rise and be counted. 5 sufficient number having ruzzen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote, followed by a series of two-minute votes. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or

commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 160 and the amendment is not agreed to -- the noes are the chair: the house will come to order, please. the house will be in order. members will please take their

conversations off the floor and take their seats. the house will be in order. the chair would ask all present to rise for the purpose of a moment of silence. the chair asks that the house now observe a moment of silence in remembrance of our brave men and women in uniform who have given their lives in the service of our nation in iraq and afghanistan and their families and of all who serve in our armed forces and their families.

the chair: without objection, two-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the request for a railroaded -- vord -- recorded vote on amendment number 2 by the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush, on which further proceedings were postponed, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-181, offered by mr. rush of illinois. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. this will be a two-minute vote, followed by a series of additional two-minute votes.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 164, the nays are 261, one member voting present, the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number three printed in house report 112-181 by the gentlewoman from california, ms. eshoo, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by

voice vote. clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-181, offered by ms. eshoo of california. the chair: a vorded -- recorded vote has been requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 163, the nays are 264, the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a rored vote on amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-181 by the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. che clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-181 offered by mr. cohen of tennessee. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in favor of taking this vote by a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is

expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 155, the nays are 272. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-181 by the gentleman from connecticut, mr. murphy, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-181 offered by mr. murphy of connecticut. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 153. the nays are 275. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 7 printed in house report 112-181 by the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 112-181 offered by mr. rush of illinois. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 161. the nays are 265. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 8 printed in house report 112-181 by the gentlewoman from hawaii, ms. hanabusa, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report 112-181 offered by ms. hanabusa of hawaii. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is

ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 168. the nays are 260. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 9 printed in house report 112-181 by the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in house report 112-181 offered by mr. johnson of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 163, the nays are 260.

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 163, the nays are 263, the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 11 printed in house report 112-181 by the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by

voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in house report 112-181, offered by mr. kucinich of ohio. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those in favor of taking this vote by a recorded vote will rise and be counted. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 164, the nays are 261, the amendment is not agreed to. the question son the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly under the rule, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union had under consideration h.r. 1938 pursuant to haas resolution 370 . the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration bill h.r. 12938 and pursuant to house resolution 370 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous

question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on the adoption of the committee amendment on the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to direct the president to expedite the consideration and approval of the construction and operation of the keystone xl oil pipeline and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order.

the house will be in order. members please clear the well. members please take your conversations off the floor. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio rise? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? ms. sutton: i am opposed in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman qualifies, the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: report the bill back to the house forthwith with the following amendments, insert the following new paragraph, 18 transcanada corporation has threatened to condemn the land of america farmers, ranchers and homeowners along the

keystone xl pipeline route and farmers, ranchers and homeowners in montana, nebraska, south dakota, and texas are at risk of having their property seized by a foreign corporation. 19, in its permit application to the canadian government, transcanada corporation, the owner and ornte war of the keystone xl pipeline projected that the keystone xl pipeline will increase oil prices in pad 2 which includes the states of illinois, indiana, iowa, kansas, kentucky, michigan, minnesota, missouri, nebraska, north dakota, ohio, oklahoma, south dakota, tennessee, and wisconsin, increasing annual revenue to canadian oil producers by an estimated $2 billion to $3,900,000,000 in 2019. page seven line 14 and 20, redesignate subsection c and d

as subsections d and e respectively. page 34, insert the following the subsection, c, protecting citizens from unfair gas prices. the president shall ensure that the agreement shall include feasible steps to preclude rising of gas prices, and prohibitions on seedsing of land of american farmers ranchers and homeowners. the speaker pro tempore: the house is not in order. members please take your conversations from the floor. the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for five minutes. ms. sutton: mr. speaker, i rise

today to offer this amendment in response to a concern that we have all heard and which was recently raised in a letter that i received from a constituent in cuyahoga falls, ohio. he wanted to though how congress can help with rising gas prices, prices that are forcing him to spend less on taking care of his family and causing uncertainty and uneasiness. it's with my constituent in mind that i offer this amendment today. mr. speaker, today we have an opportunity to join together to pass this amendment and to do something that my constituent and for the middle class families like his across this country that exist in each and every district. >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. the house is not in order. members please take your conversations from the floor.

the gentlelady will proceed. ms. sutton: thank you, mr. speaker. at the outset, i want to be clear. this amendment, this motion, it does not kill the underlying bill. so regardless of whether you intend to vote for the legislation or against it, you'll have the opportunity to do that today. this amendment simply offers us, democrats and republicans alike, the opportunity to speak up on behalf of our constituents loudly and clearly. with this amendment, what it does is makes it clear that if the underlying bill passes, we want the president to take feasible steps to prevent gas prices from rising as a result of its passage and to take feasible steps to limit the seizure of american farmland. this should be an easy amendment for colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support.

although -- a vote for the amendment means stavending up for american consumers to protect them against gas increases. a vote for this amendment means you're standing up for american families to protect them from unfair seizures of their property. these are the goals that all of us in this body, the people's house, should share. and it's porpt that we act together to pass this amendment today because make no mistake, at a time when gas prices are already too high, this bill in its current form will raise gas prices even higher. placing an even greater burden on american families and small businesses. we know this, mr. speaker, because transcanada, the canadian corporation that is building this pipeline -- >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend.

the house is not in order. the gentlewoman deserves to be heard. the gentlewoman from ohio. ms. sutton: we know that gas prices will go up was transcanada, the ka demadian corporation building the pipeline has admitted as much. transcanada's own assessment from february of 2009 states that keystone xl pipeline will increase the cost of a barrel of crude oil by $6.55 per barrel in the midwest and $3 per barrel everywhere else. mr. speaker, this is simply unacceptable. it's unacceptable because far too many middle class families are already struggling. without this amendment, this legislation amounts to salt in the wounds of working families, so many of whom have seen their jobs sent overseas and now they'll see more of their hard-earned dollars being sent out of the country and will have to pay more for gas, to

boot. this legislation in its current form also stands to harm our small business owners, putting a larger financial burden on them at a time when we have called on them to create jobs and lead the way in our recovery. it will burden our family farmers who will now have to pay more to gas up their combines and buy fertilizer. but an increase in gas prices legislation needs to be amended. from south dakota to texas, we have a situation where the non-u.s. energy company building this pipeline has been pushing american farmers and ranchers to give up their rights to their own property. . for those who resisted the company in pursuit of billions of dollars have been taking americans to court to seize control of their land through

emnept domain. transcanada have been bringing these lawsuits. these acts are bringing democrats and republicans together to speak out on behalf of property owners and make sure their rights come before any big corporation and that's the way it should be. us, standing together, to protect american consumers and property owners. mr. speaker, our country needs to protect the rights of our citizens, not subject those rights to a foreign corporation. mr. speaker, our constituents pay enough high gas prices. they need us to stand up and do all that we can to prevent the admitted increases that will occur according to transcanada's own study. we can join together to do just that and put the american people before politics and before corporate profits and ensure that the president takes any feasible steps to protect against gas increases and limit

the property of taking through eminent domain. this final amendment will ensure that these things, while allowing for an immediate final vote on the bill. i encourage my colleagues to stand together and vote yes on this final amendment. and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from ohio yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska rise? mr. terry: i rise to claim time in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. terry: i urge my colleagues to vote against this, this is a, nonsensical and not even relevant here. why? well, maybe some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have confused a public works project with this private infrastructure project. number one, private companies do

not have any right of eminent domain. they can't take people's land, so this part about them exercising and suing -- exercising eminent domain is just not relevant here. they don't have the power. the other part is equally as nonsensical. listen, this is a $13 billion stimulus infrastructure bill. this is what all of us have been asking for, because it creates thousands of jobs, 20,000 direct union construction jobs. now, the labor international union of north america supports this bill, international brotherhood of temperatures

sters, the plumbing and pipefitting industry of the united states, the afl-cio international union of operating engineers, the pipeline contractors association, these are the people, it's the labor, it's the jobs that are going to be created here and we are standing with the american people. now, this other argument that we have been debating throughout the afternoon about bringing in 700,000 barrels to 1.2 million barrels per day from canada is somehow going to raise prices at the pump. i'm sorry. i went through some economics and i don't see how adding supply, adding american jobs, makeing a reliable source of energy -- making a reliable source of energy, eliminating uncertainty is going to drive up costs. it doesn't make sense.

let's stand with the american people. let's create 100,000 new jobs. let's get america working. let's get the prices down at the pump. vote against this motion for reconsideration and vote to put people back to work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . the noes have it. ms. sutton: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage. this is a 15-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 181, the nays are 248. the amendment is not agreed to. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the bill is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 279, the yeas are -- the nays are 147 with one voting present. the bill is agreed to. without objection, the motion

to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 1383, an act to temporarily preserve higher rates for tuition and fees for programs of education at nonpublic institutions of higher learning pursued by individuals enrolled in the post-9/11 educational assistance program at the department of veterans affairs before the end enactment of the veterans educational improvements act of 2010 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair pill postponefurther proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered. or on the vote is objected to

under clause 6, rule 20. recorded votes on post poned questions will be -- postponed questions will be taken later. the house will be in order. members will take their conversations off the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 2608 as amended to provide additional temporary extension of programs under the small business act and small business investment act of 1958 and to provide for the repeal of certain small business administration programs. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2608 a bill to provide for an additional

temporary extension of programs under the small business act and the small business act -- business investment act of 1958 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from new york, mr. hanna, and the gentlewoman from new york, ms. velazquez, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. hanna: i ask unanimous consent that all members shall have five consecutive days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous remarks on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. hanna: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hanna: there are few components to the legislation we have before us. first, the bill provides for a straightforward extension of certain s.b.a. programs through december 31, 2011. this is a necessary measure since the current extension

which the house passed in may, expires at the end of this month. as we continue to do work with our democratic colleagues and our colleagues in the other body towards a full and complete re-authorization of the s.b.a. and its programs, this extension will ensure these programs are still available to provide assistance to entrepreneurs who need to create jobs. secondly, the bill before us terminates several outdated programs that are either used very infrequently or not at all. it has been said that once a program is initiated, it is almost impossible to eliminate. today, we will prove that notion wrong. the program eliminations contained in this bill represent a good first step for cleaning up this s.b.a.'s program portfolio, thereby refocusing the agency's mission on facilitating small business

lending, offering entrepreneurial advice to small business owners and ensuring they receive their fair share of federal contracts. for example, one of the programs selected for termination is a central european entrepreneurial enterprise development program. this initiative has not been funded since 1995 and one of the countries involved, check slofevack yeah no longer exists. the guaranteed bond program to provide s.b.a.-backed bonds for the equipment to retrofit factories has not offered a single bond guarantee since the early 1980's. having these programs on the books detracts manpower and resources from the s.b.a.'s core programs and time to get them out of the way. not only does this bill clean up

the s.b.a., but also saves money. the bill eliminates two drug-free workplace programs. these programs were allocated $2 million for fiscal year 2011 when not a huge sum of money when considering the overall budget. every penny saved is a penny we don't have to borrow. for additional cost savings, the legislation prohibits the s.b.a. from using any of its discretionary funding on its emerging leaders program. while the program started in fiscal year 2009 without any congressional approval or authorization of appropriations, the s.b.a. has requested $3 million for this program for 2012. the program is duplicative of existing entrepreneurial development programs and does not have a good matrix for evaluating the program's

success. the s.b.a. ought to be focusing on well evaluated, congressesally-authorized programs that have been fully vented and supported by members of congress. i would like to thank the gentlelady from new york for her efforts to craft this legislation. it is a breath of fresh air to work in a truly bipartisan manner on important issues facing our nation and i appreciate her leadership on this issue. with that, i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 2608 as amended. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. ms. velazquez: i yield myself such time as i may consume. small businesses will employ more than half of all private sector employees remain absolutely critical to the u.s.

economy with an unemployment rate at 9.2%, we need them more than ever to create new jobs. central to these efforts are the tools and resources of the small business administration, which enable entrepreneurs to secure low-cost capital, fair contracts and technical assistance. however, overtime, the agency's programs have become redundant and unnecessary. many have not been funded in decades, while others are old policies remnant from a bygone era. it is a disservice to both small businesses and taxpayers to keep this initiative on the books. by cleaning up the statute as this legislation does, we can be assured that this will help small businesses now and in the future and will be efficient and up to date. importantly, many of these were

at the thoughts of our colleagues in the senate. given this, it is my hope that the senate takes up this legislation and passes it expeditiously. chairman graves is to be commended by his bipartisan approach for these changes. doing so has produced a bill that does not adversely affect small businesses. similarly, a new but equally concerning trend has been the growth of unauthorized programs. the cost of this program has drown dramatically to equal more than $50 million and constitutes nearly 10% of the s.b.a. noncredit program's budget. by passing the legislation before us, congress can take a small, but meaningful step that will begin to close this loophole. the reforms in this bill come

against the back drop for extending certain authorities for the s.b.a. itself. whether or not this legislation becomes law has no bearing on whether the agency can serve small businesses. a prior s.b.a. extension passed two months ago, the agency will remain fully operational irrespective of the passage of this bill. ensuring that small firms have continued access to a strong and stable s.b.a. is more important than ever. the agency's services will allow entrepreneurs to start up while helping existing veptturs expand. by doing so we will allow small business owners to do what they do best and create the jobs we need to move the economy forward. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. and if the gentleman doesn't have any further speakers, i'm prepared to yield back.

mr. hanna: i'm prepared to close. ms. velazquez: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. hanna: in closing that small business can and will lead our economic recovery. it's time that those of us in congress provide them with the certainty they need to create jobs and grow our economy. the legislation we have before us today gives small firms the competence to know that the s.b.a. programs they rely on will be there for them when they need them. it also shows them that this house is serious about cutting spending, lowering debt and restoring confidence to our entrepreneurs. i look forward to continuing to work with the chairman and ranking member and all our colleagues on the small business committee to enact policies that benefit american entrepreneurs. i urge my colleagues to support this good bill. and with that, i yield back the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2608 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the bill is passed. and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 2056. the clerk: h.r. 2056, a bill to instruct the inspector general of the federal deposit insurance corporation to study the impact of snurmed deposit tower institution failures and for other purposes.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from georgia, mr. westmoreland and the gentleman from gay, mr. scott, will -- from georgia, mr. scott, will each control 20 minutes. mr. westmoreland: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. westmoreland: mr. speaker, the bill before the house today is one that will provide much needed transparency to the fdic process of examining and resolving banks. first, i would like to thank the chairman and the subcommittee chairman, ranking member and for their support for h.r. 20056 and thank my lead co-sponsor, my

friend, representative scott, for his tireless support on this issue. as i have said many times before, there is no greater threat to our communities than bank failures, especially in my state of georgia. mr. chairman, i want to take a minute to highlight bank failures by the numbers in my state of georgia. 319 is the total number of failures in the u.s. since 2008. 67 of those, that's the total number of georgia bank failures since 2008. 16, this is the number of banks in georgia that have failed in 2011. 11 banks have failed in my congressional district. and mr. speaker, i would like to get you to look at this chart. and you can see by this chart that these communities, these 10 states have had the largest closing number. their employment rate is some of

the highest. the deficiency rates. and if you look at the percentages, if you look at arizona, 30% of their banks have closed. nevada, 41% of their banks have closed. and in my state of georgia, 26% have closed. sadly, there are some communities in my district that no longer are even served by a community bank. and i have often referenced these as the 10 over 10 and these are the 10 states that have had more than 10 bank failures since 2008. as you can see these unlucky states are georgia, florida, illinois, california, minnesota, washington, michigan, nevada, missouri and arizona. in fact, six of these 10 states have had more than 10% of their banks fail in the past three years. these states also share other things in common. as i mentioned, they have a high

unemployment rate and serious delinquency rates as well as high number of bank failures. i hope no more states are added to this list. colorado had nine failures, including one on friday. kansas and oregon have had seven fails. without a doubt, the fdic is a wealth of information about the health of the bank. if you have the time and resources to go through it. however, too much information without proper contacts can be detrimental. h.r. 2056 is designed to cut through all the information to analyze the underlying fundamentals that continue to cause bank failures across this country. the bill directs the fdic inspector general, in consultation with the treasury and federal reserve i.g., to study fdic policies and

practices with regard to agreements, the fair application of regulatory politics standards, appraiseals, procedures for loan modification and fdic's handling of consent orders in cease and desist orders. . the fdic inspector general is untable fully explore such as the cause of the high number of bank failures, the impact of fair value accounting analysis of the impact of failure on the community, the overall effectiveness of agreements for resolving banks. i have welcomed the input from the fdic i.g. as well as finances if the fdic, the office of the controller general, the independent bankers' association and the witnesses at the hearing three weeks ago.

overwhelmingly, these witnesses supported 2056. likewise, the financial services committee passed h.r. 2056 out of committee with a voice vote. mr. speaker, it is clear that congress needs more information about the underlying causes of these bank failures and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. as my colleague from georgia pointed out, he aptly described the dire situation facing our state of georgia. mr. scott: mr. speaker, as i stand here, georgia, since 2008 financial difficulty started in this country, we've now lost to bank failure 67 banks that have

failed, which makes us the leader in the nation in this area in our state. we have some very capable business people in georgia and in atlanta. very sterling leaders of the financial services industry worldwide. based out of atlanta. we're grappling with the recovery. but mr. speaker, there is nothing, there's no more important sector of our economy than our banking system. it is indeed the heart of our economic system that pumps out the credit, that pumps out the capital that makes our economy go around. so it is very important that we really deal with an area and with information and with an effective study so that we can grasp the full meaning of what caused this to happen, what were the characteristics in atlanta or in georgia that caused this disproportionate number of bank failures and

indeed we can learn so much so that we can prevent this type of collapse in our financial system from happening again and make a very valuable contribution. so with that, mr. speaker, i want to take just a moment to explain what we're doing with this important bill, house resolution 2056, that we feel will make a very valuable contribution to preventing these kinds of collapses from happening again to the detriment of our economic system. the purpose of this bill is, one, to determine the extent to which certain fdic practices precipitated the bank failures. we need to find out if there's something that the fdic was doing that regulators were doing, that we need to improve upon. two, we need to determine whether various fdic policies

and practices for resolving failed banks are appropriate. that's very important to know if what we're doing is not appropriate, we can fix that. and three, we need to determine the extent to which the fdic employees themselves in the field, the investigators, the bank examiners, did they take actions that are consistent with fdic policies and procedures that we developed here in washington? in other words, mr. speaker, we need to take the time look at this peculiar situation of these rash of bank failures in one basic geographic area of this country to see what really went wrong and if there were things we were doing here in washington that we need to correct. and finally, we need to determine the extent to which the fdic policies and

procedures are applied consistently across all banks. this information will be very important. the bill requires that the fdic inspector general, within one year of enactment of this bill, will conduct a study on the impact of the failure of banks and report the results and any associated recommendations back to congress. this study would address, one, the effect of the fdic use of loss sharing agreement on relevant stake holders, including banks that survive and borrowers of the failed i.d.i. and two, the significant -- significance that paper losses, including the extent to which they trigger i.d.i. receiverships and the impact they have on raising more capital, and three the success of sealed examiners. -- examiners in implementing the fdic policies and

procedures on commercial real estate workouts. one of the things we find out in our state of georgia, one of the common characteristics that sort of held these banks separate was the overleverage, we shall say, of the portfolios in real estate and the housing bubble burst on us. and four, the application and impact of consent orders and cease an desist orders, including whether such orders are used consistently across all types of banks. and also the application and impact of fdic policies, particularly as they relate to a bank's ability to attract private capital. and sixth, fdic's handling of potential investments by private equity companies in banks. now, we had, in h.r. 2056 as introduced, we received great bipartisan support and

reception at a hearing that we recently had that my colleague, mr. westmoreland, mentioned, and the fdic and the o.c.c. are working with us on this bill. and the o.c.c. has suggested that the fdic's inspector general should consult with the o.c.c. inspectors generals with respect to study topics that pertain to banks that the o.c.c., which is the office of comptroller general, directly supervises and of course that same logic would argue for consultation with the fed. so subsequently, an amendment was adopted by voice vote in the full committee and the markup, requiring that the fdic inspector general consult with the inspector generals of the treasury in which the fdic was housed. this was passed by voice vote

with bipartisan sport. it added new study factors including appraisals and capital, required the inspectors generals to coordinate with the treasury and the fed inspector generals and four, it added a new separate g.a.o. study on bank failures to the report due one year after enactment. and i might add that both the fdic and -- as well as the o.c.c. are supportive of this measure. in conclusion, mr. speaker, this bill is very important for us, not only in georgia but across this country, where we've had this rash of bank failures. it's important for us to learn and to know about the causes of the bank failures and the states that have been hardest -- in the states that have been hardest hit, especially the issue of application and effect of cease and desist orders

particularly where the orders have been enforced uniformly and fairly across all banks. this has been a concern from our banking committee in -- community in georgia. while i know this bill alone won't solve the banking crisis, i'm confident it will provide congress and regulators with valuable information that may prevent failures in the future and provide us with ways at the fdic that the o.c.c. and fed, our banking regulators and examiners can help our banks avoid bank failures. if going to climb out of this terrible economic malaise we're in and spark growth in our communities, it is the bank that must be stable. s the banks that must be well capitalized and able to lend to consumers and small businesses. in particular, our small and community banks are the ones that will lead the way to our

economic recovery. but only if they're able to work hand in hand with our federal regulators and examiners to remain viable. this bill is a small step, but it is a big step in the right direction in that respect and i encourage all of my colleagues to support it. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia. mr. westmoreland: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. westmoreland: our hope is that this will shed light on our bank failures and why so many business people have come to all of us in this body to find out why they cannot get loans to promote job growth, to help expand their businesses. we need those answers.

we also need to make sure that this study will shed some light on what effects tarp and lost share agreements have had on our community banks. we also hope that it will shed light on why immediate writedowns are being demanded on our community banks when the loans are performing. people are paying their interest. they're meeting their renewable requirements, yet, regulators are insisting that these loans be marked down. this has caused what i call a paper loss for a lot of these banks that are then being made to ask to raise capital when they're under cease and desist orders. so all of this does not work together. in fact, a lot of things that we have done in this previous congress has caused a snowball to roll faster downhill. i hope they'll look at the mark

to market to see what has happened and what the effect of banks that have gotten tarp money have come in, and fire sold properties that have caused real property values to go down. not just for the banks, but for the people that have bought in there. we need to find out why lost share agreements promote not modifying loans. why it promotes getting rid of some of these bad loans. why it promotes being able, a bank to be able to get rid of property when the government guarantees them 95% of their loss. what effect has that had on our community banks that didn't get the tarp, that have not been allowed to be in these loss share agreements. these are answers we're looking for. mr. speaker, i have no further speakers, so with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2056 as amended? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion is reconsider is laid on the table. mr. westmoreland: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. westmoreland: i request a recorded vote. no, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the further consideration of h.r. 2584 and that i may include tabular material on the same.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 363 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2584. will the gentleman from illinois, mr. dold, kindly take the chair? the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2584 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of the interior, environment and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes.

the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on monday, july 25, 2011, the bill had been read through page 3, line 2. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 3, line 3, in addition, $32,500,000 for the processing of applications for permits to drill. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. clarke: thank you, mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. clarke of michigan, page 3, line 3, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $10 million. page 65, line 19, after the dollar amount insert, increase by -- mr. clarke: i ask that the reading requirement be suspended. the chair: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. clarke: thank you, mr. chair. i also ask to -- unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection, so ordered. mr. clarke: thank you, mr. chair. this amendment would move $10 million from the bureau of land management to the environmental protection agency's geographic programs under the environmental programs and management account. here's the bottom line with this $10 million. it's helping to save jobs connected to the $7 billion great lakes fishing industry. this industry and the jobs connected to it are at stake, are at risk because of the asian carp. so it's my intention that the environmental protection agency designate this additional $10 million to the great lakes restoration initiative, to stop the asian carp from migrating

into the great lakes. unfortunately just last week, and this is the urgency of this situation, why i'm offering this amendment, just last week the army corps of engineers found asian carp d.n.a. in lake michigan. this is deeply disturbing. we have to do everything in our power to stop the asian carp from migrating to the great lakes basin because of the $7 billion industry that's at stake. you know, these carp, they come and they eat all the food up in the ecosystem and that leaves very little for the native fish. the native fish is what people fish for in the great lakes. so again i urge this body for the sake of preserving the great lakes fishing industry to allow this amendment and again it's my

intention that the additional $10 million would go towards a great lakes restoration initiative which right now is underfunded by $100 million. so it will be some measurable improvement and to have that money focused on preserving our great lakes fishing jobs by stopping the asian carp. thank you, mr. chair and if i'm able to -- mr. chair, and if i'm able to reserve my time, i do so and if not i do yield my time back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. speaker, i rise in support of this amendment and strong opposition to this bill. the interior appropriations bill that's before us today is a radical assault on public health, on clean air and clean water and our environment. and this bill wouldn't create a

single job. instead of creating jobs and protecting the public health, this bill gives polluters and other special interests license to do just about anything that they want. this might be the single worst bill in this house for our public health and in the environment since the days of newt gingrich. mr. miller: in this bill the house republicans are undermining the clean water act, they're creating and gutting the endangered species act and that's not all. this legislation makes it harder for our states and cities to improve our crumb bebling water and wastewater systems through the state clean water and drinking water revolving funds. the legislation blocks the environmental protection agency from protecting us from mercury and soot and power plant pollution. under this bill the e.p.a. would hardly be allowed to do anything about dangerous pollution that threatens our public health. the legislation blocks the new vehicle standards that will save consumers at the gas pump and would reduce the amount of oil that we import as a nation. and if that wasn't bad enough, the bill decides to prohibit the

state of california from setting its own clean vehicle standards. the legislation also includes an extinction writer, one of the most aggressive threats to the endangered species act in my career here that would freeze all of the efforts to protect the imperiled species across the country. and one of the most offensive aspects of this bill is out of a very long list is the 80% cut in the land and water conservation fund. for nearly 50 years the land and water conservation fund has taken oil and gas drilling fuel and a finite resource to invest them in the continuing protection of our resources on land, not taxpayer dollars, these are takesen from the oil companies -- taken from the oil companies that drill in the offshore, they're used to preserve the national parks, the wildlife habitat, trace and working ranches -- trails and working ranches and forests. there has been bipartisan con enken us is a-- consensus across this country, that we will use these gas royalties to protect

american places for futuregen races. outside of the -- future generations. i don't know anyone in this country who wants to end our commitment to use these fees of big oil to protect our parks and recreation areas. these are our public lands, these are the lands that america's families use every summer, use at different seasons and different parts of the country all the time. these are the public spaces that make us the envy of the rest of the world. these are the public systems that the countries from all over the world send people to understand how did we save them, how do we protect them, how do we manage them? we set the standard for the world as it was said -- world. as it was said earlier, one of america's best ideas but now all of that is threatened for the cut to these funds. mr. speaker, these -- a few -- these are a few of my reasons but there are many, many more why i would strongly oppose this legislation and the very bad, bad ideas that it contains. i would hope that this congress would reject this legislation out of hand. i yield back the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise? >> move to strike the last word in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do. this amendment would limit the b.l.m. from spending $10 million and offsetting collections and put the funding into the e.p.a.'s geographic programs. mr. simpson: i understand what he's trying to do and am sympathetic with what he's trying to do. we have many invasive species in idaho so i certainly understand where the gentleman is coming from and the challenges that they face. that said, we worked hard to balance funding in this bill, we already funded invasive species in the great lakes at $43 million and the total for great lakes geographic -- the geographic program is $250 million. it makes little sense as an offset to take the funds from the offsetting collections for the cost to administer the oil and gas programs, in other words, these programs are paid

for by the industry, not by the taxpayers. so, while i don't necessarily oppose what the gentleman is trying to do, it's the offset that the gentleman has created to put the $10 million in there and i know that we've tried to create a balance between these different programs with limited funding so i think we've done a good job in the great lakes, the best we could in this bill, and i would oppose the amendment and ask my members to oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. clarke: i ask the gentleman to yield the time, please. mr. simpson: i'd be happy to yield if i have time left. the chair: the gentleman reclaims his time. you have time left. mr. simpson: reclaiming my time. i yield to the gentleman. mr. clarke: thank you, sir, i appreciate it. i do have a newspaper article that does state that the oil and gas industry does hold around 7,200 drilling permits that haven't been used yet but i do take the gentleman's point in consideration. if there's a way we could work out something because i'm not trying to undercut the drilling

program at all here. did i notice in fiscal year 2012 -- i did notice in fiscal year 2012 that there was a -- i should say a surplus in terms of what we funded which was around $45 million in terms of the collections that were received, arneds $27 million. so there was around an $18 million overfunding there. so that's why i did ask for this offset because i felt it would be responsible and would not undercut the drilling permit program here. mr. simpson: reclaiming my time. i appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do. as i said, we do have concerns with the offsets but i am more than willing once this bill goes to conference in whatever form depending on the outcome of this amendment, obviously, to work with the gentleman to see what we can do with the geographical

programs, not just the great lakes programs but there are both republicans and democrats that care about that geographic program. so we've tried to do the best we could there but there are other geographic programs that mr. dicks is concerned about and that mr. moran is also concerned about and we'll work with the gentleman in conference in trying to address the concerns expressed by the gentleman. mr. clarke: i ask the gentleman to yield time back, please. mr. simpson: i'd be pappy -- happy to yield. mr. clarke: i offer this amendment because of what's at stake. it's a $7 billion industry in the great lakes fishing industry and right now metro detroit and the state of michigan's in very hardhit economic times, you know, by our industrial base being eviscerated. this is the one saving grace in our state and in that region is the fishing industry. that's the reason why i'm asking for this right now. it's emergency action. we found asian carp d.n.a. in lake michigan last week. i believe i've got to do everything in my power as a representative of not only

michigan but of that entire region to stop that carp from getting into the great lakes system which would destroy our fishing industry. i urge your help. mr. simpson: yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. clarke: recorded vote. the chair: the amendment is not agreed to. mr. clarke: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> mr. speaker, i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. markey: mr. speaker, in the underlying bill the majority has

underfunded the interior department agency charged with issuing new drilling permits and ensuring that offshore drilling is safe. the underlying bill would underfund the bureau of ocean energy, management, regulation and enforcement by nearly $35 million. this is the agency that is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that we drill safely off of the coast line of the united states. at our very recent hearing, the director of that agency said that underfunding this agency as the majority, the republicans, have done in this bill would slow down new offshore drilling permits and make offshore drilling less safe and that is unacceptable. unfortunately the rule the

majority adopted has protected the underlying provision, limiting the inspection fees paid by the oil and gas industry from a point of order. and now the republicans will not allow the house to work its will on the amendment that i have drafted with the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, and the gentlelady from california, mrs. capps. our amendment would have fully funded this safety agency, by increasing the inspection fees on the oil and gas industry. the top five oil and gas companies made $35 billion in profits just in the first three months of this year. this week they will likely report similar profits for the second quarter. in fact, earlier today b.p. reported quarterly profits of $5.6 billion. that's just for the last three months, b.p. made $5.6 billion. yet the industry as a whole pays

just $10 million a year in inspection fees for offshore drilling. and the republicans are putting it offshore today from any consideration by the members of this body. so our amendment would have, if the republicans had allowed us to implement a key recommendation from the independent b.p. spill commission, the b.p. commission recommended increasing the $10 million per year that the oil and gas industry currently pays in inspection fees significantly and that is what our amendment would have done. therefore my friends on both sides of the aisle who are concerned about federal spend, the increased funding for the safety agency would have come from the oil and gas industry, not from taxpayers. but the majority won't even allow a vote on this amendment.

the oil and gas industry supports increased funding for it. the president and c.e.o. said they fully support congress providing additional resources for the safety agency. this agency needs additional inspectors and increased staff to allow more efficient review and approval of oil and natural gas permit applications and processing of environmental reviews, but what have the republicans done in this bill? they have underfunded this agency. the oil industry agrees that there needs to be more funding to process permits and conduct inspections. the only question is whether a portion of that funding is going to come from a small increase in inspection fees as the independent b.p. commission has recommended or whether

american taxpayers will have to pick up the entire tab. we are saying that they should pay the fee. the american petroleum institute should pay the fee. the oil industry should have to pick up the tab and right now, we do not have an ability to debate on the house floor. when people go to get their cars inspected, to ensure they are safe, and not a threat to the environment, they pay a small fee. but the oil and gas industry, which is recording the largest profits in the history of the world, doesn't have to pay a fee to get some of their rigs inspected to ensure that we don't have another deepwater horizon disaster. the american people want these rigs inspected to make sure they are safe, not allow oil companies to be safe from paying for more inspection fees. but when they're trying to cut the deficit, the republican majority is giving another gift

to the oil industry, straining our oil safety agency. more than one year after the b.p. spill, it is still business as usual. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. caps: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise -- mrs. capps: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to speak today about how this legislation we are considering undermines the ability of the federal government to continue protecting our nation's air, land, and water. i intended to offer an amendment along with my colleague from massachusetts, mr. markey, my colleague from new jersey, mr. holt, to fully fund the bureau of ocean energy management, fully fund the national agency in charge of regulating offshore oil and gas drilling.

unfortunately, due to changes by the republican leadership to the house budget process, we weren't allowed to offer this amendment. it's been over a year since the nation's worst offshore oil spill and i think our constituents would be surprised to learn that rather than taking action to prevent another deadly spill, this house continues to talk about expanding offshore drilling while sidestepping environmental laws to do so. they'd also be surprised, our constituents, to learn that the underlying bill blocks the bureau's ability to collect inspection fees and as a result, the agency would see a $35 million cut in their budget. mr. chairman, in his fiscal year 2012 budget request, president obama asked for a significant increase for the bureau over his 2010 budget. he asked for the new money to hire additional inspectors, enhance environmental reviews

and to enforce, and strengthen regulations. if we recall, a year ago, the events following the spill, we will understand why this is the case. while this request was a significant increase over prior years, the administration proposed to offset herely half of the requests by increasing the inspection fees on offshored rigs. this is a key recommendation of the president's bipartisan, independent national oil spill commission. in their report, the commissioners recommended the industry fee should be increased to, and i quote from their report, to provide adequate leasing capabilities and regulatory oversight for the increasingly complex regulatory activities being undertaken on the o.c.s. our straightforward amendment adopt this is key recommendation to provide the funding needed for government regulators to do their job and

it will ensure a safer and more environmentally responsible industry. mr. chairman, knowing what we know now, if we continue to allow offshore drilling in u.s. waters, the government has a responsibility to ensure that they are protecting us against a repeat of last year's disaster and if oil and gas corporations want the opportunity to drill, it's only fair for them to help cover the cost of ensuring it's done properly, that their workers are protected and the surrounding ocean is safe. but ultimately, congress holds the purr strings and we must require these corporations to step up. so the bureau can ensure that the people, communities, economies, and environment of the gulf, of alaska, off the southern california coast, are protected against a spill. whether or not we have an agency capable of properly regulating the oil and gas industry is dependent on our digs. without these fees, taxpayers, rather than the industry, would

shoulder these cost. if we want tone sure safe and responsible -- to ensure safe and responsible drilling, we must do this. this is what's needed so we do not have to endaughter a repeat of the horrific disaster that is still inflicting pain and damage to the gulf of mexico and to those who make their living from it. what a terrible legacy of this congress that we have done so little following the gulf oil disaster. what a legacy, should, god forbid, a future disaster take place and we would have remembered that on our watch, we could have done something about it. i yield back the balance of my time the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> mr. chairman, i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. holt: as you've heard, this appropriations bill provides several hundred million dollars

to the bureau of ocean energy management regulation and enforcement. sounds like a lot of money, but it is far less than what is needed for the safety and environmental protection, protection of the environment and of workers for offshore oil and other activities. the director of the bureau recently testified that these funds that are missing are needed and that they will have their -- and that their lack will have a direct and immediate impact on theable of the agency to hire inspection an permitting personnel. it's interesting that so eager is the majority to look after the interests of the oil industry that they ruled out of order our amendment which provides a one--- which provides one way to make up for

these lost funds. this amendment that i would have offered with mr. markey of massachusetts and mrs. capps of california had the amendment been in order, so eager are they to look after the interests of the oil industry, that they actually work against the oil industry. the irony is pretty rich here. at a time when the majority is aggressively pushing their oil, oil, oil, dill, drill, drill, agenda, they're slashing the very funds that are needed by the bureau to conduct the lease sales and issue the permits and inspect the offshore drilling facilities so that the industry can move ahead safely and efficiency. -- and efficiently. at a time when we are about, according to the majority here, about to require seniors and the poor to pay more for their health care and the majority is

considering drastic cuts to the social safety net and considering trading away critical parts of medicare and medicaid, the majority is prepared to hand out yet another subsidy to the oil industry. they refuse to make in order the legislation that would take .02%, that's /10 of 1% of the -- that's 2/10 of 1% of the annual profits of oil companies to replace the missing $35 million in inspection fees. that amount would fully fund the bureau and would ensure that the agency could effectively and efficiently issue the permits and conduct the safety inspections. this is an industry that is

making tens of billions of dollars each quarter as we heard b.p. just today announced more than $5 billion profit. that was a little bit below expectations, we read. $5 billion in the last three months. so as a result, because this amendment is not being made in order, this bill, should it become law, would leave the agency that is responsible for the management and regulation and enforcement of offshore drilling underfunded, understaffed, and it would leave the public and the workers at risk. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the clerk will read.

the clerk: page 3, line 21, construction, $3,576,000. land accusation, $4,480,000. >> mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new hampshire rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. bass of new hampshire. mr. bass: i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. the chair: is there objection to dispensing of the reading? without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. bass: i thank the chairman for recognizing me and making it possible for me to offer this amendment at this point in the bill. it will restore $20 million to the land and water conservation fund. it is offset by a reduction from the department of superior -- interior salaries and expenses. at present it's about $250 million so this would represent roughly a 10% reduction in the overhead for the agency but

what do you get for that? you get about an 8% increase in the land and water conservation fund funding. the land and water conservation fund was established 46 years ago in 1965. it was designed as a forward-looking program to preserve critical assets in america for all of us to enjoy. when you travel around the world, you don't find countries like america that have large parts of our country preserved for public use. most of the land in other countries around the world is owned privately or by the government and is not accessible to the government. the lwcf through its stateside program and forest legacy fund have provided countless acres of protected land for public enjoyment. now, the fund has, for the last 25 or so years, received most

of its funding from offshore oil royalties. and those royalties have averaged anywhere from $7 billion to $18 billion a year. i have a little table here for the last few years that shows the total royalties and how little amount of money that the land and water conservation fund takes from these receipts. it's authorized at $900 million. it's been funded at, of late, around $300 million and $-- 300,000 and $500,000. this year it's funded at less than $70 million. we republicans have set as a goal in our principles to reduce the growth of government and reduce programs to their january 1, 2008, level. what have we done in this appropriations bill? we have reduced this fund to its 1965 level.

i have here another little table that shows the historical funding for the land and water conservation program. there's 1965. we will be lower than that if we don't pass this amendment. i ask you, my friends, for the sake of the 900,000 americans that have it these lands during the year, of the countless hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars spent on the outdoor recreation industry, through their outdoor recreation industry, for those opportunities that we may never see again to make critical purchases and easement purchases of assets that are so important to the future of our country. to raise this appropriation from $68 million to $90 million , it's a small price to pay for what could be done with those funds. we need to continue the program of land conservation, local

recreation and, yes, working forests and a $68 million appropriation just plain doesn't do it. so on behalf of my sponsors i urge you, my co-sponsors, rather, i urge you, mr. chairman, to support this amendment and make it a part of the underlying bill. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i join my friend from new hampshire as one of the co-sponsors of this amendment and i urge house passage. mr. murphy: mr. chairman, let me say at the outset that this is a terrible bill. this is the first time that i've come to the house floor to speak on it. and it goes without saying that the devastation that this

underlying legislation would do to our frankly century-long history of environmental protection is almost inscribeble. the league of conservation voters said simply this, that this bill is the biggest assault on the air we breathe, the water we drink and the wildlife and wild places we hold dear to ever come before congress. it rolls back new vehicle emission standards, it guts the clean water act, it defunds the endangered species act. and in the middle of it all it adds an 80% cut to the land and water conservation fund, as my friend, representative bass, rightly pointed out. it essentially reverses 50 years of investment in land conservation by returning this account back to the 1965 level. it was a great republican president, teddy roosevelt, who first had the wisdom to understand how integral the open spaces of this country are to

what it means to be an american. there's something unique about this country. the views and the vistas are just one part of it, our identity is wrapped up in the places that we have conserved, the places that we have conserved through the very rightful acts of investment by our federal government over the last 50 years, but indeed over the last 100 years. and it's been republican and democratic presidents, republican and democratic congresses that since that moment of awakening in this nation have realized that this is the right kind of investment for this nation, it's the right kind of investment because not only does it preserve the character of our nation, but it does so by leveraging private investment and state investment. as representative bass noted, one of the most important pieces of lwcf is the forest legacy program. that program has conserved two million acres around the country.

in my state of connecticut it's helped conserve 8,000 acres and it does it by partnering with state resources, with local resources and indeed with private resources. in my state often through the generosity of land trusts. this is an incredibly wise investment, as it has been over the years. and worst of all this isn't even getting at the larger question of deficit reduction because this account has never been funded through deficit, it's never been funded through borrowing, it's been funded through the money that comes from our offshore oil leases. there are so many horrible cuts in this bill, there are so many reasons for those of us who believe in the concept of environmental protection made real by bipartisan support over the course of the last century to oppose this bill. but this is in my mind the worst of it. this is a sad day where we stand today, this is a small, small increase beyond what the

republicans have proposed to cut, but i think it is meaningful in a sense that it is an opportunity for this congress to come together and say what dozens upon dozens of congresses have said since 1965, that it is an american investment to spend federal money towards the project of land conservation. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> mr. chairman, i claim the time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: mr. chairman, i am a strong supporter of the land and water conservation fund. it's one of the great environmental success stories of the past 50 years. the 65 -- $65.8 million that the bill contains for the land and water conservation fund is in fact, as has been stated, the lowest since the program was started back in 1965.

this is a 78% cut from the current level of funding. but i have to oppose the bass-murphy amendment because it not only is too small but the offset used would in fact harm other important programs. the $20 million for the land and water conservation fund that the bass-murphy amendment would restore is less than 10% of the $235 million cut from this year's level. so to fund this plus-up, the bass amendment actually makes it worse by taking $20 million from the office of the secretary's account. because what appears to be an increase in funding in the secretary's office is actually the transfer of the revenue collection function from the bureau of ocean, energy, management and regulation

enforcement. they took that in so the interior department can do a better job in collecting the royalties and payments that it drew from outer continental shelf drilling. but if you take this $20 million away, it jeopardizes those collections. the problem is that the land and water conservation fund is in fact funded with outer continental shelf royalties. but if you take away the ability to collect those royalties not only are you taking the $20 million from the ability of the secretary of interior to manage the office but you could very well be costing the government much more than $20 million because they won't have the ability to collect those royalties that in fact pay for the land and water conservation

fund. now, we couldn't agree more that it never should have been cut by 78%. it should be restored, we have said that in our statement, we support amendments to restore it, but certainly not to take it from the ability of the secretary of interior to collect the very revenues that the government needs and that the american people are owed. so that's why regrettably i have to oppose the gentleman's amendment. and i will yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new hampshire. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ace have it and the amendment is agreed to -- ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk.

the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. lamborn of colorado. page 4, line 6, after the dollar amount insert, decrease by $4,880,000. page 10, line 1, after the dollar amount insert, decrease by $15,047,000. page 15, line 19, after the dollar amount insert, decrease by $18,294,000. page 78, line 1, after the dollar amount insert, decrease by $12,500,000. page 158, line 25, after the dollar amount insert, increase by $50,721,000. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lamborn: thank you. mr. chairman, i am offering this amendment on behalf of and in cooperation with representative paul broun of georgia who couldn't be here tonight and what this amendment does is it

would zero out all of the land acquisition programs within the interior, environment and related agencies appropriations bill, thus placing more than $50 million in the spending reduction account in order to reduce our national debt. the federal government already owes more than $650 million -- owns more than 650 million acres of land or 30% of the total land area of the united states. now we can't even take good care of the lands that the federal government already owns and example of this is that the park service has a current backlog of several billions of dollars of repairs and maintenance in our beautiful national parks. at a time when we are facing an unprecedented fiscal crisis, the federal government needs to focus its energy on taking better care of the land it already has rather than purchasing additional acres. our federal agencies have enough on their plate and if we zero out these land acquisition programs we can save a significant amount of money.

mr. speaker, we cannot spend our way out of the debt dilemma. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to send more than $50 million toward paying down our national debt. thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman may not reserve. mr. lamborn: excuse me? then i yield back. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. moran: we rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: mr. chairman, i kind of wish that our friends who just spoke on an amendment to add $20 million were still around because their points are well taken. you know, we've already cut 78% from this program, i would say to the gentleman from colorado, you want to eliminate entirely.

the land and water conservation fund is one of the premier environmental programs in this country, most persons -- americans have no idea how important it has been to their quality of life and to the ecology of this great country. but by wiping out these funds entirely the amendment would force land management agencies to cease all work on congressionally approved projects that are now under way using previous year appropriations. this mean-spirited amendment will hurt land owners who are willing to sell because it's going to prevent agencies from finishing the commitments that are already in place. among the willing sellers who would be unfairly thrown to the curb are owners who are partway through contracted sales and are counting on land and water conservation funding to complete those sales, those contracts that they've already been

working on. many land owners who range from elderly widowers and family trusts to ranchers and forest owners have pressing financial needs that now depend on the completion of whether ongoing land and water conservation -- on ongoing land and water conservation projects. so it's not just the sale of land, it's exchanges of land that this amendment would prohibit. many of them have been years in the making and so very important for local and private economic development and for public land management. under this amendment staff would not even be in place to accept and process donations of important natural historic and other properties, donations to the public, you wouldn't even have staff to accept those donations. without staff, right of way work to provide or maintain access to key public needs also would be

impossible. the public, the american taxpayer would be unable to secure critically needed routes for fuel and wildfire management. or for watershed management. or for access for sportsmen and other recreational use. i can't imagine the sportsmen of this country could ever want to have this kind of prohibition go in place that they can't even get access to important recreational areas for fishing and hunting and so on. the amendment would exacerbate an already draconian cut, 78% cut, to the land and water conservation program. it's a fund -- it's a program that is already paid for using a very small percentage of oil drilling receipts. i would hope that my colleagues and anybody that might be listening to this dete